By Pamela Lewis Dolan/Post-Tribune staff writer
CROWN POINT — It was presented as a way to keep big box retail out of Crown Point. But in the end, Plan Commission members did not apologize for passing an ordinance specifically aimed at keeping Wal-Mart out, while leaving room for more desirable retailers.
The Council Chamber was filled to standing room only, many staying until after 10 p.m., to voice their opposition to the Wal-Mart anchoring Lauth Development Group’s proposed development at Interstate 65 and U.S. 231.
The comments were made as part of a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would require special use zoning for any buildings over 75,000 square feet.
The ordinance would require a vote by the City Council to approve any special use zoning. And the council would be allowed to place conditions on the developer, which could lead to the hand-picking of desirable retailers.
The Plan Commission voted 5-1 to send a favorable recommendation to the council, which will decide on the ordinance change at a special meeting scheduled Wednesday.
James Wirtz, who offered the only dissenting vote, said he thought the city might be facing a “slippery slope” by passing legislation that would allow the council to pick and chose the retailers it wants. That would be blocking free enterprise, he said.
“This ordinance doesn’t mention any names, but what it’s really saying is no Wal-Mart in Crown Point. Period,” Wirtz said.
Councilman Steve Farley said it was a matter of the community’s welfare, which the council should decide. And some retailers present dangers that others do not, added commission member Carol Drasga.
Before the Plan Commission met, the Redevelopment Commission offered another blow to Lauth Development Group by denying its request for TIF allocations, because of Wal-Mart being the anchor.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate to give tax money to a company bringing this retailer in,” said Councilman Bob Corbin, who serves on the Redevelopment Commission.
Rob Gardiner, who said he didn’t consider Wal-Mart the “bogeyman” was the only dissenting vote in that matter.